This is why Shelby Grebenc of Broomfield, CO, is such an inspiration. Shelby is founder of “Shelby’s Happy Chapped Chicken Butt Farm,” located about 20 miles outside of Denver. And at just 12 years-old, Shelby is also the youngest Animal Welfare Approved farmer to date. Shelby represents a beacon of hope for the future. Her dedication to high-welfare farming is an inspiration to all of us – regardless of age.

Although she’s only 12, Shelby has a maturity and determination well beyond her years. When she was 10, an age at which most children are asking their parents for allowance money and still assume that eggs come from grocery stores, Shelby approached her grandmother for a $1,000 loan to launch her own pasture-raised egg business. Shelby’s mother Nancy, who has multiple sclerosis, was in a nursing home at the time and Shelby wanted to start selling eggs to expand the family’s income.

Shelby first started learning to raise laying hens when she was just six years old, looking after the family’s small flock of chickens on their four acres. Her father gave her specific chores to carry out, such as watering, feeding, and letting out the hens. She clearly learned a great deal from this experience because now Shelby manages a flock of around 130 pasture-raised hens, which produce between 28–56 dozen eggs a week. It takes her about an hour each day to feed the hens, put out fresh water, and collect and clean the eggs. She sells most of her eggs to neighbors in Broomfield. Customers can call her or look for the big yellow sign she places at the end of the driveway when she is available to make sales, although she and her dad can also deliver eggs within one mile of their home.

Shelby first learned about the Animal Welfare Approved program from a neighbor and decided she would like her hens to have the distinction of being raised with the highest animal welfare standards. Supporting young farmers who aspire to provide us with the healthiest, safest and most sustainable food for future generations is something that I passionately believe in. In fact, we specifically amended our policies to allow Shelby to sign the forms and become the named farmer. As we require an enforceable agreement with our farmers, Shelby’s father had to co-sign the agreement, although we work directly with her. Following the on-farm audit last September, Shelby’s flock was officially certified as Animal Welfare Approved, a certification and food label that lets consumers know that the chickens on Shelby’s farm were raised in accordance with the highest animal welfare standards in the U.S., using sustainable agriculture methods on an independent family farm.

So what do her school friends think about Shelby’s entrepreneurship? She says that some are astonished that she goes to the bank and, using her Colorado state-issued ID, withdraws money to buy chicken feed. But while some friends think it is pretty cool, many just don’t understand farming. “Some kids don’t even realize the leather on their shoes came from a cow somewhere,” she recently explained. “As my dad says, it’s a part of life, but it is our job to make sure animals have the best, most enjoyable life possible while we have them. I love my animals and I make sure they are happy but I also understand the outcome.”

We know that the industrialization of farming has had a devastating impact on the environment and animal welfare. But it has had a devastating impact on our U.S. family farming heritage, too. According to the National Commission on Small Farms, “Independent farm families are being forced out of business to make room for further corporate consolidation. As a consequence, rural communities in agricultural areas have suffered decades of economic and social decline and decay.” Hardly the kind of future career we’d want for our children. However research from the United Kingdom shows that pasture-based sustainable farming systems not only provide more job opportunities on the farm, but they are also attracting more young people into farming. If we can encourage more kids like Shelby to explore sustainable farming as a real career choice we could help regenerate agriculture as a major employer once again, with a major role in the rural economy – and a rightful place in our hearts.

Commenting on the intensive farming of caged hens, Shelby recently said,“I think it is important that chickens get to be chickens. They have to be able to fly, scratch, peck, take dirt baths and react with one another. If chickens don’t get a chance to do these things they are not going to be happy.” Wise words from a 12-year-old – and I couldn’t agree more.

I wish Shelby all the luck in the world for her Shelby’s Happy Chapped Chicken Butt Farm business and I am proud that she chose our program. If Shelby is representative of our farmers of the future then I think we are all in pretty safe hands, wouldn’t you agree? And if you are in Broomfield, CO, and you see the yellow sign outside her drive, please try some of Shelby’s eggs. You won’t find a tastier, more healthful egg in town.

Sparboe Farms of Litchfield Minnesota produces 300 million eggs per year in shell, liquid, frozen and dried form. The company supplies retailers and food service outlets across 26 states. The undercover filming showed disturbing abuse of chicks and older hens at several of the company’s farms.

In addition to this undercover video, Sparboe Farms recently received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that said inspectors found “serious violations” at five Sparboe facilities of federal regulations meant to prevent  Salmonella. The warning said eggs from those facilities had been “prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby they may have been rendered injurious to health.”

McDonald’s is finding out that there is a price to be paid for dealing with industrial egg producers like Sparboe. By their very design these industrial systems fail to meet the needs of the hens, fail to protect the consumer from health problems such as Salmonella and fail to provide farm workers with a safe and positive working environment.

Following the horrific recall of over  half a billion eggs in Iowa last year – where significant failings in basic management of the hens and their environment led to serious Salmonella risk – this is another scandal in an industry that seems incapable of regulating itself. As AWA pointed out at the time, recent research has shown a direct correlation between flock size and confinement and the presence of Salmonella – basically the bigger the flock and the more confined, the greater the risk of infection. It is also well documented that caged systems inherently lead to poor animal welfare.  A standard industry cage forces birds to live in an area smaller than a sheet of paper. The natural stress response to such close confinement is pecking and cannibalism, a problem which the industry has “solved” by removing all or parts of the birds’ beaks. This type of band-aid approach is especially disturbing given that science has already shown pasture-based systems to resolve this issue.

As McDonald’s is discovering, part of the problem with the industrial farming model is that big agribusiness puts production in the hands of very small group of producers—leaving consumers and birds vulnerable to disease and abuse with limited options of alternative products. There must be a point at which Mc Donald’s, Target and other retailers of eggs look beyond their corporate bottom line and see the future.

It may surprise you to know that McDonald’s has some experience of better and more sustainable sourcing –McDonald’s Europe that is, not McDonald’s U.S. Over 95% of all eggs used by McDonald’s across 21 European countries are either free range or cage free “barn” eggs. McDonald’s in the U.K. say that in 2009 they used over 91 million free-range (pastured) eggs on their breakfast menu, and that all the eggs for their sauces and the breakfast menu were sourced from British farmers. In addition, the hens are all fed non-GM feed; and the company estimates that the egg farmers have planted nearly half a million trees on pastured laying hen ranging and foraging areas to provide shade and shelter  for the hens, thereby improving the environment on the farms. McDonald’s Europe is committed to reaching a 100% non-caged egg supply by 2012.

McDonald’s Europe is working with companies that see the farmers and their birds and animals as an important and integral part of their business; not just figures on a balance sheet. This model of production is providing 100% pastured eggs in one country and a growing majority of non-caged egg in another 20 countries. This is the result of a committed effort on the part of McDonald’s to learning how to stimulate demand, manage distribution and to set real, monitored and achieved targets for improvement. The success of this model shows that the lessons have been learned. Why then can McDonald’s in the U.S. not learn from its European operation?

There are many farmers in America ready willing and able to step up and provide these pastured eggs for companies like McDonald’s, if only the company were seriously interested. In a joint statement today John Boyd of the National Black Farmers Association and Andrew Gunther of Animal Welfare Approved invited executives of McDonald’s to start the conversation and to make a commitment to move away from unhealthy and abusive caged eggs. The alternative is out there. We challenge McDonald’s to start looking for it.

As the only national nonprofit organization that audits, certifies and supports farmers raising animals on pasture, we are fortunate to have become the most highly regarded food label for sustainability and outdoor farming systems.

With an ever-growing family of certified farms, AWA helps consumers find sustainable, pasture-raised products and connect with the farmers that produce them. We encourage you to seek out AWA farms and purchase their products this holiday season as a way to support pasture-based farms. Please also use this forum and social media to share your thanks.

USE THE COMMENT BOX BELOW TO SHARE YOUR THANKS TO FAMILY FARMERS.  OR… to use Twitter to thank family farmers, use the hash tag #ThankAWAFarmers. On Facebook, use @Animal Welfare Approved to tag your message.  We will share all of these messages with AWA farmers!

Food is a central focus of any holiday, but it has impacts far beyond the table. While the majority of farm animals are raised in extreme confinement, numerous studies have shown that pasture- and range-based farming is better for the environment and brings a wide range of benefits to both animals and consumers.

Our farmers are providing good, healthy food from animals raised according to the highest standards and are moving us all towards a more sustainable future. Every animal we raise outdoors on pasture brings an environmental benefit to us all – in responsible nutrient management, soil conservation and lower environmental impact.

Join us in celebrating these farmers who work so hard to feed us and who are truly stewards of our planet.

Tips for a Sustainable Holiday Season

*    Support family farmers by choosing AWA meat, dairy and eggs for your holiday cooking

*    Use AWA’s online directory to find farms, restaurants and retailers in your area carrying AWA products

*    Ask for Animal Welfare Approved meat, dairy and eggs. If retailers don’t have AWA products this year, your request will encourage them to stock them for the next year!

This is exactly what has happened in a small but very significant planning battle taking place in Great Britain. Midland Pig Producers (MPP) has applied to build a state-of-the-art indoor hog production unit in Derbyshire, which would hold 2,500 sows and produce around 1,000 hogs a week for slaughter – one of the biggest industrial hog farms in the country. But in what might prove to be a fatal blow to MPP’s plans, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) – the U.K. government’s independent advisory body on health – has raised a number of human health concerns about the proposal, including the fact that “recent research has found that those living up to 150m [165 yards] downwind of an intensive swine farming installation could be at risk of adverse human health effects associated with exposure to multi-drug resistant organisms.”

According to the HPA’s statement (1), many scientific studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between ambient emissions and particulates released into the air – such as ammonia and fecal waste dust – and hospital admissions for both respiratory and cardiac diseases and deaths, particularly among older people and, for respiratory illness, children. The HPA also raised concerns about the risks posed by bioaerosols – or airborne particles that contain living organisms, their toxins and waste – which can be inhaled and ingested by humans. The HPA stated that there is significant potential for the generation of bioaerosols at intensive farming installations, with a range of possible health effects – including infectious and antibiotic resistant diseases, acute toxic effects, allergies, cancer, respiratory symptoms and lung function impairment.

Of course, none of this will come as a surprise to anyone in the U.S. who has the misfortune of living near one of thousands of U.S. industrial pig operations across the country. Indeed, U.S. industrial hog operations have been pumping toxic waste into our environment for years – just on a far, far bigger scale.

According to the National Hog Farmer’s latest State of the Industry Report, over 116 million hogs were slaughtered in the U.S. in 2010. Almost 90 percent all pigs slaughtered in the U.S. in 2008 came from hog operations with more than 5,000 pigs, while some of the largest U.S. hog operations can hold over 50,000 head of pigs in confinement. The bottom line is that the majority of pigs slaughtered in the U.S. come from hog operations that are larger than MPP’s proposed unit.

Industrial hog operations like these produce vast quantities of concentrated waste called swine effluent – a toxic concoction of pig feces, heavy metals, bacteria and, of course, residues from the concoction of pharmaceuticals that are given to the pigs to keep them alive in the filthy, confined conditions. Most U.S. factory farms pump this swine effluent in huge nearby open tanks or cesspools. Some of these lagoons are as big as several football fields, each holding hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of gallons of putrefying swine effluent.

Being exposed to the elements, these lagoons emit toxic gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, as well as methane, a key greenhouse gas. As this swine effluent is expensive to store or treat, most industrial systems periodically pump the waste out of the lagoons and spray it on the surrounding fields. The problem is that it is often sprayed at such high application rates or so often that the soil and plants cannot even begin to absorb it, let alone actually utilize it. This level of over-application frequently leads to highly toxic run-off, where the water-soluble nutrients find their way into our waterways and groundwater systems in vast quantities, polluting our drinking water and rivers, leaving our waterways dead. Accidents and storm floods have also led to massive releases of the toxic waste into waterways. This toxic run off is directly contributing to the 230 recognized oxygen-deprived dead zones along the U.S. coast, such as in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Researchers from Texas A&M University are predicting that the dead zone in the Gulf will exceed 9,400 square miles this year, which would make it one of the largest ever recorded.

A significant body of scientific research already proves that the livestock waste management practices found on most industrial livestock operations in the U.S. are often not fit for the purpose and do not adequately or effectively protect water resources from contamination with excessive nutrients, microbial pathogens and the pharmaceutical residues present in the swine effluent and other industrial farming waste. A 2007 review paper published in Environmental Health Perspectives (2) states, “Impacts on surface water sources and wildlife have been documented in many agricultural areas in the United States. Potential impacts on human and environmental health from long-term inadvertent exposure to water contaminated with pharmaceuticals and other compounds are a growing public concern.”

The storage and frequent spreading of this toxic swine effluent also has a significant impact on the health of communities living nearby. A growing body of research reveals that the toxic emissions which U.S. industrial hog operations release into the atmosphere every day – including gases, particulates and bioaerosols such as hydrogen sulphide, fecal waste dust, and bacteria –are causing serious adverse health effects on U.S. citizens and making their lives a misery. A March 2011 paper published in the journal Epidemiology (3) examined the health of residents in 16 communities in a region of North Carolina that is densely populated with industrial hog operations. The researchers looked at the associations of reported hog odor and of monitored air pollutants with the physical symptoms and lung function of people living within 1.5 miles of hog operations. They found that air pollutants from the hog operations were causing acute physical symptoms, including eye and nasal irritation, respiratory symptoms, difficulty breathing, wheezing, chest tightness, and nausea, among other symptoms. The evidence was so great that the researchers concluded, “Exposure to air pollution from hog operations is an environmental injustice in rural areas hosting facilities that supply pork to populations spared the burdens of its production.”

We already know that industrial farming is a perfect breeding ground for the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, so the U.K.’s HPA’s concerns that the antibiotic resistant bacteria found on industrial hog operations could pose a real health risk to nearby human populations is clearly justified – and represents a significant public health issue for U.S. citizens. As U.S. hog operations are not subject to the same strict controls on the use of antibiotics as found on European farms, more U.S.-focused research is urgently needed to establish the risks.

In the drive to produce ever-cheaper meat it would appear that the pursuit of profit comes before all other concerns, including our health. Yet as the public finally wakes up to the huge societal costs of industrialized livestock production, including the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the explosion in diet-related ill health and the impact on rural economies, and as people recognize the unsustainable nature of industrialized livestock production, with its dependence on ever-diminishing supplies of fossil fuels and immense greenhouse gas emissions, the opportunity to radically change the way we farm is becoming more realistic – and more urgent – than ever.

References
1. Derbyshire County Council planning application consultation responses for the erection of a 2,500 breeding sow pig rearing unit near Foston. Available online at:
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/applications/ESplanningapps/Planning-Applications/CW9-0311-174/9.1563.5/02-Consultation/RES.pdf

2. Burkholder, J., Libra, B., Weyer. P. et al. (2007). Impacts of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. Environmental Health Perspectives. 115:308–312.

3. Schinasi, L., Horton, R.A., Guidry, V.T., Wing, S., Marshall, S.W., Morland, K.B. (2011). Air pollution, lung function, and physical symptoms in communities near concentrated swine feeding operations. Epidemiology. 22:208–215.

I bumped into Finley at the recent Good Food Festival in Santa Monica, CA. We got talking and he told me about his recent successful fight with city bureaucrats over his community garden and the grassroots initiative he’s set up to help urban communities to grow healthy, organic food for themselves. From the outset I liked the man, and we were clearly fighting the same fight, just on very different fronts. His story was as inspirational as anything I had seen or heard before.

Finley is a fashion designer by trade. He’s also a keen gardener: “It’s just something I’ve always done,” he explains. “It’s kind of spiritual, putting something in the ground and watching it grow.”
After attending a local gardening class run by Florence Nishida in 2010, where he first heard about edible gardens being set up in urban areas devoid of nature and fresh fruit and vegetables, Finley was inspired to do something in his own neighborhood. Hooking up with Nishida and a few other friends, he established LA Green Grounds, a grassroots initiative that seeks to help communities to set up productive gardens. As Finley explains, South Los Angeles is recognized by the USDA as a so-called ‘food desert,’ where fresh, healthy and affordable food is in very short supply: “LA Green Grounds was an attempt to change this from the ground up, to provide fresh fruits and vegetables for local people and to reconnect them with their food and how it’s grown.”

The idea is that LA Green Grounds helps people who want to set up a community edible garden but don’t know how: “We turn up with basic tools and a bunch of plants and teach people how to grow their own organic fruits, vegetables and herbs right in their own backyard.” So how does it work? “First, we establish whether or not the area is a viable plot for growing and if there is sufficient local support to make it happen. If it’s looking good, we work with the community to draw up a garden plan. Then, we plan a community ‘Dig In’ where friends and neighbors come together to create their garden. We teach them how to maintain it, even how to make compost. It’s all about instruction, demonstration and participation.”

LA Green Grounds brings along basic gardening equipment, and supply the compost, seedlings and plants for free. “All we ask in return is for those who we’ve supported to help at a future Dig In for another area,” Finley says. The LA Ground Website keeps folk informed of the location and date for future Dig Ins, and interest is growing all the time.

But it’s not just about growing healthy, affordable food for those who need it most. LA Green Grounds is using gardening to help rebuild communities in some of LA’s most deprived areas: “It’s remarkable how community gardening can bring about real change in neighborhoods. People turn up for some fresh food, or at the Dig Ins, and just start talking. And it always amazes me how planting a bunch of seeds or plants really can change someone’s life as they watch it grow, and then harvest it. I’ve seen people light up and literally change before my eyes.”

So what about the conflict with city officials? Well, after setting up LA Green Grounds, one of the first things Finley did was to convert his front yard into a community vegetable patch back in the fall of 2010. By spring 2011, he was growing tomatoes, peppers, squash, onions, eggplant, and more in this urban garden for himself and local residents. So what’s the big deal, you might ask?

Well, the problem was that this ‘garden’ was actually a 10ft by 150ft strip of land between the sidewalk and curb in front of his house – a so-called parkway. This land was not ‘his’ to cultivate; parkways are all managed by the city’s Bureau of Street Services, and converting it from lifeless scrub to a productive urban garden without permission was against the city rules. Finley was told he had to cut it down or apply for a $400 permit. But even with a permit the garden’s future looked in doubt, as the rules specified the maximum height (no more than 36 inches) and type of plants he could grow. “In an area so devoid of nature and healthy food it just seemed crazy that we couldn’t grow fresh fruit and vegetables,” Finley says. “They were happy for people to waste water on scrub, yet we could not use the land to grow food for people.”

So Finley and LA Green Grounds decided to challenge the rules. With a hearing set for the end of August, Finley set up a local petition to muster support for the garden, and soon gained almost 1,000 signatures. Once the community began to mobilize, the media began to take note. And it wasn’t long before local politicians also saw the light. At the end of August, Los Angeles officials announced that they had cancelled Ron Finley’s hearing and that he could keep growing. And according to a recent piece in the LA Times, local councilor Herb Wesson is now calling for changes in the rules so that urban gardeners can legally grow food on parkways and potentially other city-owned vacant areas. As Finley says, “We’re just trying to show people what can be done, just what is possible.”

An inspiration to all, Ron Finley is a true urban farming hero.

Find out more about LA Green Grounds at www.lagreengrounds.org.

So what’s ruffled my feathers? At issue here is a statement released by National Pork Producers Council President Doug Wolf on the new Government Accountability Office report, Antibiotic Resistance: Agencies Have Made Limited Progress Addressing Antibiotic Use in Animals.  Wolf says, “Not only is there no scientific study linking antibiotic use in food animals to antibiotic resistance in humans, as the U.S. pork industry has continually pointed out, but there isn’t even adequate data to conduct a study.” He continues, “The GAO report on antibiotic resistance issued today confirms this.”

Wolf’s comments are hogwash and he knows it. The truth is that the GAO report does nothing of the sort, nor was that ever its intention. Even from the report title it’s already pretty clear what the overall conclusion is: key government agencies – namely the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) which are primarily responsible for ensuring food safety in the U.S. – are not doing enough to combat the growing threat of antibiotic resistant bacteria to public health. Far from “confirming” Wolf’s position, the GAO report states that, “Antibiotics have saved millions of lives, but antibiotic use in food animals contributes to the emergence of resistant bacteria that may affect humans.”

What’s more, the GAO provided the USDA and HHS with a draft of the report for review and comment and both departments agreed with the GAO’s recommendations for urgent changes to ensure that the correct data is recorded. It’s there in black and white. So I hope you can understand my utter indignation when I read a so-called ‘news’ item about this very same GAO report on the hitherto balanced and respected Meatingplace.com with a headline of “GAO can’t find link between antibiotic use in food animals and human resistance.”  Rather than evaluate the report themselves it would appear that Meatingplace took the spin from the NPPC and ran it as fact.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that the National Pork Producers Council has fed the media with this kind of disinformation. In 2010, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Pork Producers Council, American Meat Institute and other industry bodies issued a joint statement which claimed, “there is no conclusive scientific evidence that shows the use of antibiotics on farms contributes significantly to an increase in antibiotic resistance in humans.”

The statement above flies in the face of fact. Only the willfully ignorant could ignore the recent World Health Organization (WHO) report which states that the “effectiveness of critically important antimicrobials for human medicine should not be compromised by inappropriate over-use and/or misuse in the non-human sector.” If we really had nothing to worry about, why did Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the WHO, warn earlier this year that, “In the absence of urgent corrective and protective actions, the world is heading towards a post-antibiotic era in which many common infections will no longer have a cure and, once again, kill unabated”? Why did the WHO dedicate World Health Day 2011 – an annual global PR initiative to highlight a priority area of concern to the WHO – to the very plight of combating the rampant rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

When it comes to protecting your future health, and the health of your family, who would you trust? A motley crew of lobbying organizations whose industry-funded objective is to protect and promote the interests (i.e., profit) of companies that control the industrialized livestock farming industry above all else? Or the World Health Organization (WHO), a world renowned specialized agency of the United Nations that acts as a coordinating authority on international public health?

Scientists have known for years that intensive farming systems provide a perfect breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant disease-causing bacteria. And this isn’t something that’s just happening in other countries: it’s happening in our own backyards. It is also killing Americans every year and unless we do something about it now, it’s going to get a whole lot worse. And while the NPPC is unable to put science ahead of profit, the United States Department of Agriculture has already admitted the link.

Recent cases of antibiotic-resistant E. coli, Salmonella and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) have all been linked to industrial farming. A recent study by University of Iowa found MRSA in swine and swine workers in the United States. The investigators found a strain of MRSA, known as ST398, in a swine production system in the Midwest. “Because ST398 was found in both animals and humans, it suggests transmission between the two,” said the lead author of the study. “Our findings also suggest that once MRSA is introduced, it may spread broadly among both swine and their caretakers. Agricultural animals could become an important reservoir for this bacterium.” This begs the question, “Who is the NPPC really representing?” By denying the existence of the link between the use of antibiotics and the obvious threat to farmers’ health and livelihood the NPPC demonstrates complete disregard, if not contempt for the farmers it allegedly represents.

NPPC’s position shows a failure of industry to address systemic problems that are threatening public health. A nationwide study published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal in April 2011 found “unexpectedly high levels” of antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in fresh meat and poultry from grocery stores. Analyzing 136 samples of beef, chicken, pork and turkey from 26 retail grocery stores in five major U.S. cities, researchers found that nearly half of the meat and poultry samples—47 percent—were contaminated with S. aureus, and more than half of those bacteria—52 percent—were resistant to at least three antibiotics. The most recent incident was the outbreak of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella Heidelberg this summer, which was linked to a single Cargill meat processing plant in Arkansas, killing one and sickening more than 80 people. Cargill’s plant reopened over the summer, only to close again just weeks later with a further recall of contaminated meat.

When it comes to matters of global human health, surely honesty and transparency must always prevail? Unfortunately, history tells us otherwise. We know that during the 1970s the tobacco lobby fought blood, tooth and nail to protect its own corporate interests, despite overwhelming evidence that they were killing their customers. In its fight for survival, we can expect the industrial farming lobby to do all it can to protect itself.

The State of the Plate DC (www.StateofthePlateDC.net) daylong conference is set for Monday, October 17, 2011 at George Washington University’s Marvin Center and will feature a series of panels and notable speakers, focused on sharing best practices, information, and strategies. The event is designed for chefs, restaurateurs, distributors, farmers, ranchers, food leaders, students, faculty and those interested in the topic.

Ultimately, producers want to sell meat and restaurants want to buy it. This event will allow both producers and chefs/restaurant owners to discuss the terms of the trade via lively discussions, and then potentially engage in actual deal‐making that satisfies the needs of both groups. Designed to share information in a positive format, focus will be on sustainable farming, animal product preparation, the myths and realities of food labeling, and supply chain management.

This event is organized by Animal Welfare Approved, the industry leader in auditing and certifying family farms that raise their animals sustainably, outdoors on pasture or range according to the highest welfare standards. The co‐organizer is Educated Eats (the education foundation arm of RAMW), dedicated to creating the next generation of culinary professionals. The George Washington University’s Urban Food Task Force is the event’s key collaborator.

“DC chefs are increasingly renowned for their commitment to top‐quality, sustainable, healthy, and delicious foods. I’m delighted to see more of them entering the dialogue about sustainable and high‐welfare farming. State of the Plate DC fits well with the mission of George Washington’s Urban Food Task Force; it offers hands‐on opportunities for chefs and producers to work together in advancing the conversation about food policy and action,” says Diane Robinson Knapp, Chair, The George Washington University Urban Food Task Force.

Animal Welfare Approved program director Andrew Gunther added, “We believe that attendees will gain a better understanding of the challenges and rewards of developing sustainable food supply chains, but even more importantly, participants will have the opportunity to meet with and taste products from farmers already delivering solutions.”

“Educated Eats is thrilled to be working with our partners on this sustainable meat conference, continuing our series of seminars for our members,” says Gregory Casten, Chairman of the Board of RAMW. “We look forward to raising awareness for chefs and restaurateurs about the many benefits of sustainable farming practices‐‐including raising animals outdoors on pasture or range. Using sustainably raised animal proteins can help improve a restaurant’s image, efficiency and performance.”

Tickets: $55 includes continental breakfast and boxed lunch from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. Advance registration is required. Seating is limited so be sure to register early. To register online visit www.StateofthePlateDC.net. From 5:00‐6:30 pm a sustainable meat tasting reception will bring together members of the RAMW with farmers, distributors and processors.

Location: The conference will be held at the George Washington University’s Marvin Center, 800 21st Street, Washington, DC 20052.

Questions: Contact Laura Colombi with questions at (202) 446‐2138.

Members of the press are encouraged to contact Beth Hauptle at (202) 446‐2155 to reserve complimentary press passes.

I know this first-hand from conversations I have had with Will Witherspoon, linebacker for the Tennessee Titans – and sustainable farmer. Will is a unique human being; a gentle, humble and quiet spoken man whose day job is making the quarterback’s life as uncomfortable as possible. He’s also passionate about producing sustainable, healthy and nutritious food on his family farm, Shire Gate Farm, near Owensville, Missouri.

Through our farming connection, I have been very fortunate to have got to know Will and he’s become a family friend. On several occasions, he has given both my sons one of those talks that only a true sportsman can. As any dad knows, we can talk until we are blue in the face about the need to eat well and look after yourself, and to dedicate yourself to your sport. Yet after one minute chat with Will, my boys are immediately re-energized and focused. Will has the gift of being able to communicate the connection between what goes in their mouths and their performance out on the field in a way that most dads can only dream of. In today’s junk food world, where childhood obesity is common place and diet-related ill health is epidemic, this kind of education is truly priceless.

Will and I have spoken at length about the connection between the food we eat and our health. When Will bought Shire Gate Farm as a working farm in 2007, he wanted to farm it “right.” After much research, he chose the White Park cattle breed to start building up his herd as they are docile, thrive in a grassfed environment, and provide superior milk and meat. His research also led him to Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) and pasture-based farming: “I wanted Shire Gate Farm to be true to nature and true to the way things should be done,” he explained on one of my visits to the farm. “That means putting the welfare and care of the animals first.”
As a professional athlete involved in one of the world’s most physical and competitive sports, Will is particularly aware of the health benefits of grassfed, high-welfare farming. “I want my kids, and all kids really, to grow up in a way that is more in touch with the natural environment,” he explained. “My cattle are raised as nature intended, on grass, and aren’t fed growth hormones, antibiotics or other unnatural additives. As a pro football player, I can’t take over-the-counter cold medicine without letting my trainer know about it. Why would I want my kids eating beef from cattle fed hormones or routine antibiotics?”

Will’s concerns about how he farms and the food his family eats are well founded. We know that the nutritional quality and taste of meat is the result of how an animal is fed, raised and ultimately slaughtered. I mentioned above the old saying ‘You are what you eat;’ so when you buy grassfed meat what are you eating?

Omega-3s are often referred to as “good fats“, because they play a vital role in every cell and organ system in the human body. People who have ample amounts of omega-3s in their diet are less likely to have high blood pressure or an irregular heartbeat. These crucial healthy fats are most plentiful in flaxseeds and fish, and are also found at much higher levels in meat from animals that have been raised on grass when compared to cheap, intensively farmed grain-fed meat. Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is another “good” fat worth examining. Scientists now believe that CLA may be one of our most potent defenses against cancer; and when ruminants are raised on fresh pasture, their meat and milk contains three to five times more CLA than from animals fed grain-based diets. Similarly, we know that vitamin E in our diet is linked with a lower risk of heart disease and cancer. Research has also shown that grassfed meat is higher in vitamin E than meat from grainfed animals.

So where does AWA fit in all this? AWA has the most rigorous standards for farm animal welfare currently in use by any United States organization, and they exist for good reason. Our standards have been developed in collaboration with scientists, veterinarians, researchers, and farmers across the globe to maximize practicable, high-welfare farm management. Why? Because research shows that if animals are kept on farms where they are not overcrowded, where they can perform their natural behaviors on pasture, where they are fed a diet that matches their natural needs, and where they are managed to promote health and well-being then they are happier and healthier. The end result? Better tasting, more nutritious meat, milk and eggs from sustainably managed family farms that we can all feel good about eating – and that includes the Witherspoon family. Animal Welfare Approved: not just food for thought, but food for sport.

For more information on Shire Gate Farm visit www.shiregatefarm.com

On July 29, the U.S. Department for Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) announced a nationwide outbreak of a deadly strain of Salmonella food poisoning that is resistant to multiple antibiotics. According to the FSIS, the cases of Salmonella Heidelberg were associated with the use and consumption of ground turkey. No supplier or source of the outbreak was provided. No names, no brands, no source – just advice on cooking and handling meat properly.

Then on August 3, the multinational food monolith Cargill announced the largest ever Class I recall of tainted meat. In a press release Cargill stated that based on information from public health officials the company was ”voluntarily” recalling 36 million pounds of fresh and frozen ground turkey produced over a seven month period beginning in February 2011 at one of their meat processing facilities at Springdale, Arkansas. According to a spokesperson, while there was no conclusive proof about the source of the Salmonella Heidelberg contamination, Cargill was recalling the meat out of “concern for what has happened, and our desire to do what is right for our consumers and customers.” Consumers were urged to return specific fresh and ground turkey products. Hidden in the list of recalled products are 40-pound chubs (catering packages) of ground turkey.  These chubs are used in the food service industry and combined with other food products—and thus, presumably, are now well beyond the reach of this recall. Processing at the Arkansas plant was also suspended, although production at Cargill’s four other meat processing plants would continue unaffected.

So far, the contamination has resulted in one death in California and at least 79 illnesses across 26 states. According to reports, it appears the outbreak “officially” began in March 2011, when a growing number of cases of Salmonella Heidelberg were noted. However, the FSIS didn’t issue a public warning until July 29, and even then this was a broad statement about potential links with ground turkey. Questions are already being asked about the significant time lag between the March detection of the spike in cases, the FSIS announcement in late July, and Cargill’s voluntary withdrawal in early August. But I have far graver concerns about this outbreak.

Cargill’s statement read, “It is regrettable that people may have become ill from eating one of our ground turkey products and, for anyone who did, we are truly sorry. We go to great lengths to ensure the food we produce is safe and we fully understand that people expect to be able to consume safe food, each serving, every time.” But these are hollow words indeed; for in almost the same breath, Cargill abdicated responsibility saying, “We all need to remember bacteria is everywhere, and we must properly handle and prepare fresh foods wherever they are served.” The American Meat Institute has also leapt to Cargill’s defense, reassuring U.S. consumers that the turkey supply is safe, especially if standardized safe handling and cooking procedures are followed.

As a consumer I can’t help but find this insulting. The safe handling instructions should be there to protect the consumer – not the multinational corporation. Safe handling instructions are meant to be common sense guidelines for consumer safety, but have now been co-opted as the fail-safe for appalling production practices. While I am the first to accept that good food hygiene is important when handling raw meat and that bacteria are ubiquitous in our environment, please forgive me for screaming about the enormous elephant that is running riot round the room. My grave concern is that this outbreak is yet another stark warning that we are on the verge of something very scary indeed: A world where antibiotics will no longer work, and where common bacterial diseases will once again kill unabated, returning us to the medical equivalent of the 18th century.

While any outbreak of food poisoning is horrific, and the immediate focus must be to treat those affected and identify the source, few people seem to be discussing the larger public health issue: this particular strain of Salmonella is resistant to multiple antibiotics. Scientists around the world link this resistance to years of misuse of medicinally important antibiotics by the intensive farming industry. Virtually all intensively farmed animals in the U.S. receive low levels of antibiotics throughout their lives as growth promoters to help maximize production. While this lowers the price tag on industrial protein, the practice encourages bacteria to quickly become resistant to antibiotics – the same antibiotics we use to treat ourselves. In fact, some dangerous bacteria are now resistant to multiple antibiotics. This means that when we get infected, there are fewer and fewer options for treatment. And we are fast running out of options altogether.

On the same day that the FSIS officially announced the outbreak of multi-antibiotic resistant Salmonella Heidelberg, a paper published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases warned of the discovery of yet another (and separate) multidrug-resistant strain of Salmonella, Salmonella Kentucky, which has a high-level resistance to a number of medicines, including a key antibiotic, ciprofloxacin. Ciprofloxacin is one of the last remaining antibiotics that can still combat severe cases of Salmonella in humans. The authors suggest this new strain is most likely due to the inappropriate use of a group of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones (which include ciprofloxacin) in poultry production in Nigeria and Morocco, and call for urgent global action to limit its spread.

This all comes hot on the heels of the deadly outbreak of E. coli O104:H4 earlier this summer in Europe, which left at least 52 dead and over 4,000 people sickened. Again, what particularly concerned scientists was that the E. coli O104:H4 strain was resistant to several key antibiotics, and the consensus is that the misuse of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming systems was to blame.

In early June 2011, a paper from Cambridge University scientists in the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal confirmed the emergence of a new strain of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in British dairy cows, which can also cause life-threatening illness in humans. Once again, the scientific consensus is that the routine use of antibiotics in dairy farming is to blame for this highly dangerous new strain.

Urgent pleas to address this issue are mounting – this is a scientifically grounded concern that is recognized as a serious public health threat throughout the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) has been warning for years that the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is one of the gravest threats known to human health. In recognition of this threat, on World Health Day 2011, which was themed “Antimicrobial resistance: no action today, no cure tomorrow,” the WHO introduced a six-point policy package to combat the spread of antimicrobial resistance. Among the key targets was the urgent need to regulate the use of antibiotic medicines, including in animal husbandry, and to reduce the routine use of vital antibiotics in food-producing animals. The message cannot be any clearer.

I hate to be the voice of doom and gloom, but the advice of “cook it properly and everything will be OK” just doesn’t cut it. A report from the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General points out that while cooking meat properly can destroy pathogens such as E. coli and Salmonella, no amount of cooking will destroy antibiotics and other residues in meat. In some cases, heat may actually break antibiotic residues down into more harmful components. So I think I’ll pass on that double turkey burger with Salmonella to go – even if it has been grilled to a crisp.

The point is that the likes of Cargill and Co. need to clean up their act. Our farming industry is already five years behind the European Union, 15 years behind Denmark and 25 years behind Sweden in banning non-therapeutic uses of medically important antibiotics in farming. The U.S. intensive farming lobby claims that such a ban would devastate U.S. farming and dramatically increase food costs. But European farmers have survived, and the changes have not reduced efficiency of meat production nor directly increased the cost of food. In fact, one Danish study shows that the ban led to lower mortality and higher growth rates in pig farming.

All this leads me to ask: is cheap meat really worth it? The gravity of the threat we face cannot be overstated – we are literally about to lose one of the most important medical innovations of our time. We need to act and we need to act NOW. I urge you to support Congresswoman Louise Slaughter in her drive to introduce The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), which seeks to limit the overuse of antibiotics in U.S. livestock farming so that these lifesaving drugs will remain effective in the treatment of human illnesses. Surely preserving the usefulness of vital medicines that we all depend upon is more important than eating cheap, tainted meat and short-term corporate profits?

Despite ongoing protests and legal challenges from environmental groups, land managers, federal agencies and other organizations, the USDA’s decision paves the way for the unregulated use of GM lawn seed in U.S. neighborhoods – and a potentially dramatic increase in the use of a toxic herbicide that is increasingly being linked to adverse impacts on human health and the wider environment.

Kentucky bluegrass is one of the most popular domestic grass varieties in the U.S. and is commonly sown for use in gardens, parks and school fields. Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (Scotts) has genetically modified Kentucky bluegrass so that it is resistance to a commonly used herbicide, glyphosate. This means that users can sow the grass seed and use the herbicide to kill off weeds without harming the lawn, and would result in the first ever GM plants available for actual use by the general public. Sounds like a time saving solution? Well, as with any genetically modified ‘quick-fix’, there are significant hidden dangers that we all need to urgently consider.

In a press statement conveniently released just before the busy holiday weekend, the USDA stated that Scotts’ proposals did not require any regulation because the organisms used in generating the GM Kentucky bluegrass were not considered to be plant pests, and that Scotts also did not use a plant pest to genetically engineer the Kentucky bluegrass. In effect, the USDA contended that the GM plant was “substantially equivalent” to non-GM Kentucky bluegrass and therefore did not require more stringent safety testing. In addition, as the GM process involved a single gene insertion, the USDA argued that this did not actually result in the creation of a new species of Kentucky bluegrass. Once again, no additional regulations were deemed necessary.

It seems that, with the helping hand of the USDA, the powerful biotech industry is having its cake and devouring it. Despite using state-of-the-art “biolistics” recombinant DNA technology to splice a single gene from one completely unrelated plant variety (Arabidopsis thaliana) to confer glyphosate herbicide tolerance to another, the USDA does not consider this GM crop to be a ‘new’ plant species, thereby avoiding regulation. Yet Scotts (and other biotech companies for that matter) can also claim full intellectual property rights on their ‘new’ GM plants and exercise complete control over how the seed is used. I call that a ‘win-win’ situation for Big Ag where we, the public and the farmers, are the ultimate losers.

Call me a cynic but it came as no surprise to find out that Scotts is also Monsanto’s exclusive agent for the international marketing and distribution for consumer usage of Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that any future sales of Scott’s GM herbicide-tolerant grass seed will also result in increased sales of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. After all, that’s the whole purpose of Monsanto’s agreement with Scotts: they want to maximize the sales of their toxic herbicide. And with over 50,000 square miles of U.S. lawns out there, our yards and parks represent a huge and hitherto untapped market for the GM industry.

But ever since Scotts first announced its intention to develop GM Kentucky bluegrass seed, environmental campaigners have raised alarm over possible environmental impacts associated with its widespread domestic use. As Kentucky bluegrass is wind-pollinated and readily hybridizes with other grasses, they warned that GM Kentucky bluegrass would easily cross-pollinate and contaminate wild grass relatives, as well as non-GM Kentucky bluegrass grown by organic farmers as livestock feed. They warned that the sowing of GM lawn seed would also inevitably lead to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weed problems and an inability to remove herbicide-resistant weedy grasses from naturally protected areas. They also warned of the associated increased use of glyphosate herbicide and even more toxic pesticides where glyphosate becomes ineffective.

These concerns are well-founded: glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, which is already widely used by farmers with Monsanto as ‘Roundup Ready’ crops, including soy, maize and canola. There are already many unintended consequences of GM crops, with the widespread development of herbicide-resistant weeds, novel pest and soil nutrient problems. And despite early promises that GM farming would dramatically reduce the quantities of herbicides used in agriculture, research now shows that Roundup use in the U.S. has actually increased 15-fold since 1994 when the first herbicide-tolerant GM crops were introduced.

Scientists are now finding that glyphosate is widely present in our soils, waters and on our food as a result of the explosion in its use over the last two and a half decades. More troubling, however, is that independent scientific studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is resulting in a number of potential human health problems, including birth defects from exposure during pregnancy, as well as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (a type of blood cancer) and other forms of cancer in animals and humans. Evidence also suggests that glyphosate may affect the nervous system and could even be implicated in Parkinson’s disease. Independent scientists have reported that the agrochemical industry has known about birth malformations in experimental animals caused by even low doses of glyphosate since the early 1990s.

The introduction of GM glyphosate-resistant Kentucky bluegrass will force us all to become subjects of an experiment that should have happened in the USDA’s laboratories – not in our lawns, backyards, in our local neighborhoods, and in parks where our kids play. This experiment will further increase the use of this toxic herbicide, and will inevitably lead to the cross-pollination with wild relatives and the many environmental problems this will entail. The potential human health impacts have yet to be discovered, but I know I would plow my lawn up if I thought this seed was in it. For the sake of a few weeds, are the potential risks of GM lawns really worth it?

Read the Q&A from APHIS here.